These Are Written: Toward a Cruciform Theology of Scripture

By Peter Nafzger and Joel P. Okamoto

Today there is an increasing awareness and availability of the sacred writings of the world's religions. This raises important questions about the Christian Scriptures. What is distinctive about these writings? What role do they play in the Christian story? What makes these particular texts "holy"? The modern "battle for the Bible," with its narrow focus on proving (or disproving) biblical inerrancy, has made it difficult to provide sufficient answers.

This work of constructive theology rethinks the concepts, categories, and assumptions that have dominated the modern approach to the Bible by returning to the biblical narrative and its focus on the cross. It identifies the Scriptures as the written form of the living and active Word of God, which was spoken by the prophets and apostles and became human in the person of Jesus Christ. This conception of the Bible provides Christians in this postmodern world with a solid ground from which to address pressing questions about canon, authority, and interpretation of their Scriptures.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Release date: May 31, 2013
• ISBN: 9781621897385

Peter Nafzger

Peter H. Nafzger (Ph.D.) is an assistant professor at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. He teaches homiletics and systematic theology, focusing on the Word of God in its written, spoken, and personal forms. Previously he served for nine years as pastor of New Life Church-Lutheran in Hugo, Minnesota

Book preview

Foreword

In this book Peter Nafzger deals with the question, What is the Bible? His answer is the traditional claim that the Bible is the Word of God. His account, however, differs from many in that it does not depend on the inspiration of the biblical authors and their words. He does not deny this claim, but he does not rely on it.

What, then, does he rely on? The short answer is Jesus Christ. Of course, this is much too general a reply to stand on its own, but Nafzger’s more specific answer is precise, clearly laid out, and thoroughly argued.

What kind of answer is this? One fitting response would compare it with Karl Barth’s approach and answer to the question. Barth’s approach stands out, because he diagnosed the modern situation well and developed a theological account of the Word within the doctrine of the Trinity. This was an impressive accomplishment, and Nafzger readily appreciates it and develops his own account with reference to it.

The difference in Nafzger’s approach comes out most clearly in his insistence that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus must have constitutive significance for a theology of the Word. For all Christians, the question of whether God has spoken or is speaking is answered in Jesus Christ. But Nafzger reminds us forcefully that we come to this answer not only in what Jesus said and did but especially in the fact that his words and deeds led to his rejection and crucifixion. Although Jesus’ words and actions did show that he was the Lord and the Son of God, others could question, deny, and explain away this identification, just as many did in his day and as many do in ours. This fact—which culminated in his crucifixion—has to be accounted for. When one does this, on what can faith in Jesus and his words and work stand? His resurrection on the third day. By raising him from the dead, God vindicated Jesus as Lord and as his Son, and he established that his word was indeed the divine Word. The resurrection also established Jesus’ authority to send others to speak and act in his name, from which comes the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the means of grace, the teaching of the Christian faith, the continued authority and the proper interpretation of what we now call the Old Testament, and the writings that would come to be regarded as the New Testament. Out of this line of witness and reflection comes Nafzger’s account of the Scriptures.

From this we can see another response to the question about Nafzger’s approach: it focuses on the question of authority. Modern theological accounts of the Scriptures, including Barth’s, have given little attention to authority as a theme for reflection. Nafzger, however, appreciates that the Gospel narrative makes it clear that Jesus’ authority was a central claim. Those who recognized his authority looked to him (or, in the case of demons, looked out for him). Those who denied it looked for ways to kill him, and they found one. But Jesus’ resurrection justified his authority, and the authority of the church, which derived from the risen Lord. As I have already suggested, more than a theology of the Scriptures arises from this. In fact, this is only one facet of a larger theological account of the Word of God. It is precisely this feature, however, that allows Nafzger to develop a closely-knit account of the Scriptures that deals clearly and consistently with questions about canonicity, authority, and interpretation.

Many readers will note a definite Lutheran accent throughout this book, and it calls for explanation. This accent is obvious in the repeated references to the Lutheran tradition and Lutheran theologians. It also comes through, but perhaps more subtly, in the way the account of the Word coheres with other features of Lutheran theology such as forensic justification, sola fide, and its focus on the one person of Jesus Christ. As such this book also serves as a concrete defense of the Lutheran confession of the faith and an illuminating look at the Lutheran way of doing theology.

But another reason for the Lutheran accent is that this book may be read as a suggestion for moving past a painful period for Concordia Seminary, where I teach and from which Nafzger submitted the initial version of this book as his doctoral dissertation, and the church body it serves, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. In the 1960s and 1970s, Concordia and the Missouri Synod endured a bitter conflict over the Scriptures. The conflict was ended more than it was resolved. The willingness to think deeply about nature and interpretation of the Scriptures in the Missouri Synod has only returned over the last decade or so. This book testifies to and seeks to promote that willingness.

Understandably, this statement may puzzle readers who have no connection to or knowledge about the Missouri Synod. I would assure them that this book requires no prior knowledge about this conflict or its problems. Those, however, who do know about this conflict or about similar situations, and especially those whom this conflict affected personally, may be suspicious of a book that begins by criticizing the usual use of the doctrine of inspiration. I must assure them that there will be no great reversal, no theological turnaround to the doctrine of inspiration. But I would also assure them, and all readers, that out of this comes a theology of the Scriptures consistent with Martin Luther and Martin Chemnitz, with theologians of the ancient church, and, indeed, with the acknowledged testimony of the evangelists and the apostles. One might wish for more from a theological account of the Scriptures, but perhaps the clearest sign of this book’s achievement is to show that no one should expect less.

Joel P. Okamoto

Preface

This book is the result of my own personal struggle to understand the Bible. My struggle has not been with a single passage or chapter—although there are plenty of passages and chapters that require some struggling—but rather with the nature and function of the Scriptures in the economy of salvation. Fifteen years ago, when serious questions about the Bible were beginning to surface for me, I would not have phrased it that way. But now, after more than a decade of trying to make sense of the Christian theology of Scripture, I have come to the conclusion that the writings of the Old and New Testaments are most appropriately understood in terms of the role they play in God’s plan to save his fallen creation.

From as early as I can recall, I remember being taught and believing that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. I believed it tells the truth about God, the universe, and me, and I looked to it for guidance and direction. My theology of Scripture could fit on a bumper sticker: God said it. I believe it. When questions about the Bible occasionally arose, they were usually related to the application and interpretation of individual passages. As I began more formal theological studies, however, basic questions about the Bible became important to me. These questions did not arise from doubts that God could speak through a donkey or turn water into wine. And I did not question whether God could inspire sinful human beings to write sinless words. My struggle came from a sense of discomfort about the way in which I conceived of the Scriptures in the first place. My conception of these writings made it difficult for me to answer some fundamental questions. Some of these questions concerned the canon: Why were these particular writings included in the canon and not others? and What do we do with New Testament writings that the early church was not sure about? Other questions concerned authority: What does it mean for the Scriptures to have authority in the church? and If the church canonized these writings, how should we understand the authority of the church in relation to the authority of the Scriptures? Still other questions concerned interpretation: "How should we (or how can we) interpret the living and active Word of God? and Why do Christians disagree about so many interpretive issues?" Asking these questions made me uncomfortable because, with increasing frequency, I could not find satisfactory answers to them. The more these questions gnawed at me, the more I realized that I needed a more comprehensive theological account of why I believed that the Bible is the Word of God, including a clear explanation for how this belief was consistent with the rest of my faith—especially my faith in Jesus, the crucified and risen Son of God. My discomfort led me to a critical examination of the modern way of thinking about the Scriptures, especially the doctrine of inspiration. I reasoned that, if my way of thinking about the Bible is correct, I should not be afraid to put it to the test.

That is what I did. This is what I found.

Simply put, I have concluded that the modern framework in which the Bible has been considered has gone wrong. Neither side of the modern battle for the Bible offers a satisfactory account of the nature and function of the Scriptures in the biblical narrative. Both sides remain dogmatically detached from the rest of the Christian confession—especially from Christ and the gospel. Rather than trying to rehabilitate one of the two modern options, it seemed best to me to take a step back and approach the theology of Scripture with a different perspective, a new paradigm, a fresh start. I have taken comfort in the fact that I am not alone. Theologians from various backgrounds and traditions have recently come to the same conclusion, including theologians from my own background and tradition. The account of the Scriptures in this book is not the only way in which a theology of Scripture may be articulated. But as I will attempt to demonstrate, it flows from and is consistent with the trinitarian and soteriological narrative that undergirds the entire Christian faith. It is grounded in the church’s one foundation, the crucified and risen Christ, and for that reason it is better able to handle contemporary questions about the canon, authority, and interpretation of the Scriptures.

There are many people who have helped me write this book—some more aware of it than others. This list begins appropriately with my parents. Before I was able to read a single word in the Bible, they spoke God’s living and active Word to me and my siblings at home. My Christian faith is evidence of God’s work through their faithful speaking, and I am thankful to them for serving as God’s instruments in my life. I am also thankful for my brothers and sisters in Christ at New Life Church—Lutheran in Hugo, Minnesota. For the last five years I have been preaching and teaching the Word of God among them, and I am certain that I have learned much more than they. Ministry at New Life has given me many opportunities to witness firsthand God’s use of the Scriptures in his plan of salvation.

I would also like to thank Christian Amondson, Chris Spinks, and the people at Wipf and Stock for working with me to make this book happen. I appreciate the opportunity they were willing to give me.

A number of my former professors have helped me a great deal by reading and commenting on versions of this book. Jeff Kloha and Leo Sanchez offered their helpful reflection and suggestions about the Scriptures in the early church and the relationship between Jesus and the Spirit. Robert Kolb helped me understand Luther’s theology of the Word and how it functions in the church. He also provided some very helpful assistance in thinking through questions about publication. I would like to say a specific word of thanks to my father, Samuel Nafzger. He taught only one of my classes (on contemporary approaches to Bible, nonetheless), but he has been teaching me about Jesus and the Scriptures all my life. More recently, our conversations about the Bible have helped me refine my own thinking about God and his Word. In many ways I consider this book a continuation and expansion of his lifetime of engaging the Scriptures in the church. I am also extremely grateful to Joel Okamoto. It would be difficult for me to overstate his positive impact on this book. He has given generously of his time, critical reflection, and substantive support. The five years I spent working with him on the theology of Scripture shaped me as a pastor and a theologian. Our many conversations improved this work in countless ways. It would never have been written without his active engagement, and I continue to appreciate his support and friendship.

Finally, and most importantly, I am deeply thankful to (and for) my wife and children. To Olivia, Johann, August, and Louisa: I am sure you do not realize it, but the four of you have helped me think about the Scriptures and the Word of God with fresh eyes every time you sit on my lap for Bible stories and every time you gather around me for children’s messages on Sunday mornings. My fervent hope and prayer is that you will always look to the Scriptures with faith in Jesus, our crucified and risen Savior, and that by believing in him you will have life in his name. To my wife, Katie: you have made countless sacrifices (several times) for me and this book. You have helped me think through the theology of Scripture in more ways than you realize. Our conversations about the Bible and preaching have helped me understand how and why we read the Scriptures. You are an indispensable part of my ministry and this work. On this, your birthday, I thank our Lord Jesus for the life he has given you, and for the life we share in him.

This book is dedicated to all five of you.

March 1, 2012

Peter H. Nafzger

Abbreviations

ANF The Ante-Nicene Father: Translations of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. 10 vols. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

BC The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000.

CA Augsburg Confession (Confessio Augustana)

Ap Apology of the Augsburg Confession

SA Smalcald Articles

SC Luther’s Small Catechism

LC Luther’s Large Catechism

FC Formula of Concord

SD Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord

CD Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics. 4 vols. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. London: T. & T. Clark, 2004.

LCC Early Christian Fathers. Translated by C. C. Richardson, Library of Christian Classics 1. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953.

LW Luther’s Works. American Edition. 55 vols. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg and Fortress Press, St. Louis: Concordia, 1955–1986.

NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Philip Shaaf. 28 vols. in two series. 1886–1890; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983–87.

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976.

WA Dr. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Weimar: Böhlau, 1883.

Introduction

To my mind it is Jesus Christ who is the original documents. The inviolable archives are his cross and death and his resurrection and the faith that came by him.

—Ignatius, To the Philadelphians 8.2 (ca. 110).¹

Two things stand out in Ignatius’ description of the relationship between Jesus and the Scriptures. First, the Scriptures are not simply about Jesus; in a serious way they are Jesus. Second, because his cross, death, resurrection, and faith in him are central to who Jesus is (and what he does), it follows that his cross, death, resurrection, and faith in him are also central to what the Scriptures are (and what they do).

The subject of this book is the Christian theology of Scripture. But

because of the way the Scriptures have been thought of and talked about for the last several centuries, and because of the unique nature and function of the Christian understanding of Holy Scripture, this book is also very explicitly about Jesus. To be more specific, it is about Jesus Christ and him crucified, for the foundation of the Christian faith is the one who was crucified for our sins and raised for our salvation.

Perhaps that is the best place to start.

Christ crucified. Thus the apostle Paul summarizes the Christian message to the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:23). And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Cor 2:1–2). The cross appears foolish to human understanding, but Christians believe it is the wisdom of God and the power of salvation.² For this reason it has stood at the center of the Christian message since the very beginning. Each of the four of the canonical gospels highlights Jesus’ death and resurrection as the climax and culmination of his life and ministry.³ The apostolic preaching in the book of Acts and the apostolic message recorded in the New Testament epistles return repeatedly to the death and resurrection of Jesus as the constitutive Christian event. The earliest Christian creeds center around the cross,⁴ and worship in the earliest Christian communities concluded with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper as a proclamation of his death.

⁵

Inseparable from Jesus’ death and resurrection are the speaking and the writing of the prophets and apostles. The former foretold the coming of a promised Messiah—the anointed one who would deliver God’s people from bondage (Isa 42:1). Jesus identified himself as this promised Messiah as he interpreted the prophetic writings in light of his own life and ministry (Luke 4:14–21; John 5:39). His mission and identity are bound together with the writings known as the Old Testament—he makes them intelligible and they make him intelligible. Jesus himself did not leave any written records, but he instructed his disciples to teach everything he had commanded them (Matt 28:20) and to speak on his behalf and with his authority (Luke 10:16). He did not leave them alone to do this, but rather promised to give them his Spirit of truth who would guide them (John 16:13–15, 20:21–23; Acts 2:1–4). They did this by speaking and by writing, and the definitive written versions of their message are found in the writings known today as the New Testament. Together with those of the prophets, the apostolic writings are regarded in the church as Holy Scripture. They are read in worship, studied in the classroom, and meditated on at home. It is simply impossible to conceive of the Christian faith apart from these writings, and therefore it is appropriate to describe Christian history as an ongoing encounter with Holy Scripture.

⁶

Despite the central significance of Holy Scripture for the Christian faith, a great deal of confusion and disagreement exists, both inside and outside the church, about the nature and function of the Scriptures. In his historical survey of the theology of Scripture, Justin Holcomb asks some of the questions that have yet to be answered definitively:

What is scripture? Is it divine? Human? Both? Is scripture authoritative? If so, how and for whom? What is the scope of its authority? Is scripture inspired by God? What about scriptural interpretation—is that inspired? Does God illuminate humans to understand scripture? Is there an appropriate method of interpreting scripture? What is its purpose? How is scripture used? How ought scripture to be used? How do scripture and tradition relate? Does scripture interpret tradition or does tradition interpret scripture? Or both? What does it mean for a Christian to call the Bible the Word of God? And if Jesus is also called the Word of God, how does Jesus as the Word of God relate to the Bible as the Word of God?

⁷

Holcomb’s questions show that there remains uncertainty and disagreement about many issues related to the Scriptures. This uncertainty reaches to the very existence of such a thing as Holy Scripture itself. Wilfred Cantwell Smith suggests: Most of us hear the word ‘scripture’ without stumbling over it. Using it, we give the impression, even to ourselves . . . that we know what scripture is. On reflection, it turns out that it is hardly the case.⁸ Smith challenges us to take another look at these well-known writings and ask ourselves a very fundamental question: What is Scripture?

Prior to the seventeenth century this question was easy to answer. Christians believed that the prophetic and apostolic writings were the written Word of God. In modern times, however, this belief was called into question in foundational ways. The advent of rationalism led some to begin reading the Scriptures from a critical perspective. Treating the Scriptures like any other ancient writing, they began questioning biblical reliability and authenticity; they began emphasizing the sinfulness of those who composed and transmitted these writings; they concluded that the traditional belief that the Scriptures are the Word of God was no longer tenable. Not everyone accepted this approach to the Bible, of course. Many rejected it as a departure from historic Christianity. They went to great lengths to argue that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, completely free from error, finally and fully authoritative for Christian faith and life. The dispute between these two approaches became known as the modern battle for the Bible,⁹ and the questions that framed the discussion several hundred years ago remain to this day.

¹⁰

In his study of the theology of Scripture, Telford Work describes the modern debate as the crisis of Scripture.¹¹ He compares it to the iconoclastic controversy that